During the founding of our nation, the issue of representation and direct taxes created a formidable challenge. Of the 13 original colonies/States, eight were states allowing slavery while the remaining five were free states where slavery was forbidden. If counted as whole persons, the slave holding states, by counting the enslaved population, would gain a disproportionate representation due to including slaves who were without rights. In the case of taxes, the slave holding states felt disadvantaged because the slave owners would be taxed for each of their slaves being counted as a whole person.
On June 11, 1787, the three-fifths compromise was introduced by James Wilson and Roger Sherman and included in the Constitution under Article 1. Section 2. which states: Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.
Outnumbering free states, the slave holding states felt the most important issue was representation and each slave being counted as 60% of a person would significantly boost their representation in the new federal government. As an example, Virginia, which was the largest slave holding state based on population, increased their representation by more than 47% thanks to the compromise.
With the South’s defeat in the American Civil War, and the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 16th Amendments to the Constitution, whether legal or not isn’t the point, ended the direct tax upon the States and negated the 3/5 of a person rule, or did it? Slaves, upon being declared free, became whole persons and the 14th amendment granted birthright citizenship to those individuals born here and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Note the only exception, other than subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is those who are not taxed federally. They are still notably excluded. The Constitution and the 14th Amendment use the term “Indian”, as that was the main group of people who fell outside of both of these law instruments.
With the 14th Amendment not nullifying the “not taxed” group, that portion of the population, who are not legal residents or citizens, remain bound by Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution and can, and should be, excluded from both the census and representation. These people voluntarily wish to remain outside of both our taxation and rule of law. By illegally residing in the United States and avoiding federal taxation, they are able to work for lower pay which suppresses all wages.
States actively seek illegal residency as a way to bolster representation in our federal government. They back laws that increase federal funds to their states and continue to offer non-citizens incentives to keep coming. It is a vicious cycle that leaves the working class shouldering an ever-increasing burden to pay for services they are ineligible to benefit from.
A new 3/5 Compromise is needed to rectify this unsustainable problem that government has created. Nothing needs to be changed in our existing law to stop these progressive States from gaming the system. The only issue is the identification of those who still fall into the Constitution’s Article 1. Section 2 status. Clarification of this, along with the fact that their value to States, who encourage their illegal invasion, has been reduced by 40%, would remove much of the impetus of State leaders taking advantage of the system to the detriment of citizens.
…more to come